US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 134

On May 02 2018 03:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:


It's hard to define really, and it depends on what you perceive as the mission of the thread and what constitutes quality. I haven't been part in any moderation efforts to redeem the thread - I've been too preoccupied with other things in life to really engage in the moderation as of late. This isn't an attempt at distancing myself from the actions the rest of the staff has taken - but rather to signify that the following opinions are my own.

I'm also not really answering your question I guess - but part of that is because I haven't really been following the thread that much lately. I don't have a strong opinion on whether there's been a decline in quality or not, because I think that's a mixed bag. But I'll detail how I feel about the thread in general.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the thread. I thought it gave me really valuable insight into the 'feel' of the american political climate. What issues mattered the most to people, what arguments were most persuasive, which politicians were most relevant. I liked it as a news-aggregate, as an arena to get exposed to different perspectives, and as a method of getting valuable feedback to your own more or less staunchly set political beliefs.

Now, I think sometimes, politics should be antagonistic and confrontational. This is the nature of discussing issues that actually matter. Tesagi doesn't actually matter, and when we discuss brood war or sc2 balance or who is the best player or what is the best strategy for dealing with +1 5 rax, it's important that we manage to do so cordially. And no opinion on any of these subjects should be so offensive that maintaining your cool and composure should be particularly difficult.

But when we're discussing whether or not to invade Iraq, whether or not to combat global warming, whether or not racism is a problem in the US today, whether we should support Israel's aggressive settlement policy, to what degree rural americans should accept being mocked and belittled, to what degree they should accept jobs disappearing and their communities disintegrating. Sometimes, people are right to get angry. At the same time, it's a tough thing to balance - because too much anger makes productive, enlightening discussion impossible. But it's also impossible to have productive, enlightening discussion without any emotion. Nobody will care enough to make the effort to persuade, then.

In one way, the Trump-election-period was amazing for the thread. It really functioned as a reflection of the evolution of the american level of discourse. People would be pissed at each other before Trump's emergence, too, but Trump really enhanced the 'factional' element. Before, there were some political points of view that would brand you as evil, naive or an idiot - now you'd be one or more of those through giving your support for - or the lack of opposition - towards either Sanders, Hillary or Trump. This was a big blow for the idea of the thread being an outline for pleasant, civilized and enlightened discourse. But it was amazing in terms of how well it reflected the american political climate.

In a way, I think what we're seeing now, is part of the same. It seems like society is kinda processing how to deal with the editorial (or, where the editor is invisible and unaccountable)-free media consumption habits spurred on by social media. There have been good and bad elements to this. Giving the formerly voiceless a voice, that's fantastic. Widespread persuasively designed fake news getting shared millions of times and believed by millions of people? That's potentially disastrous.

Likewise, the recent crackdown and more harsh moderation has influenced the thread in several ways. It negatively influenced the activity. But is that necessarily negative? In 2016 following the thread was almost a full-time job - it might be a good thing if fewer people repeat the same message. Has it negatively influenced the average post quality? I think not. Has the thread become a lesser outlet for opinions that distinguish themselves from the acceptable mainstream? Certainly. Is the discussion more pleasant and less antagonistic? My impression is also yes. Maybe the balance moved from being slightly off-center on one side to off-center on the other. But like, if I really wanted to make the thread better, what I would do is post more good posts in the thread. That's how you go about it. My personal opinion is that the thread is better off with GH, xDaunt and Danglars participating in it - I enjoy being exposed to different perspectives, these three all bring it. But I also don't think any of these posters have been actioned for their best posts, and I think they would all, if they really tried, be able to contribute their point of view without being banned.

On April 26 2018 16:13 LegalLord wrote:
The problem goes well beyond [the bad bans] - the quality of discussion available has declined month after month to the point where piss fight exchanges are the norm rather than an occasional occurrence. It’s not a recent problem, it’s been steadily happening for years now. The response to putting effort into a not popular opinion is to have a swarm of dismissive me-too posters look for asinine criticism to try to dismiss it. Only thing that’s changed is that now highly questionable bans are thrown into the mix.

I don’t know why you’d expect them not to walk away when the experience is wholly negative. It’s more a matter of finding the right catalyst than anything else.

On May 02 2018 09:57 Aquanim wrote:

Should I take that as a no in your case?